pyrale

No cardboard, no cardboard derivatives, no cellotape.

to compete with major carriers worldwide.

I don't see a reason why countries with existing carriers would allow that, given the owner's stance about political meddling.

They would be as large as your average hyperloop capsule.

The problem is, global warming doesn't affect daylight.

In my book, that would have been a "Fortunately," entry.

I don't get these kinds of posts. Zero how-to, zero share about the tradeoffs the author took.

It's just a random internet dude telling us how he thinks other people should feel about their work.

because there's no joy in managing a declining company, especially when you made it grow in the past, and probably get enough money from the deal that you don't need to care anymore.

Can/should Europe reinvent all this from scratch or can we just apologize, kiss and hug and move on?

I don’t see the US as willing to do the necessary stuff for that to happen honestly. Last threats on Greenland were this week, as were last threats on Spain.

It is that even without an open typeclass system, these specific typeclasses have been a common request for a long while.

I have worked at a few elm places, there is always a dict-for-everything dependency or local implementation.

If you want to stick it to Jeff, the best part is to give/lend/sell them once you've read them. Or even better, get them from the (public) library.

... and others are more visible features like equatable and hashable types.

I love Elm, and I love the community, but I feel a little gaslit here.

CO2 has been rising since, what 250 years

It has been rising exponentially.

However real effects of global warming seems to be felt since, like 10 years old ?

Look up glacier timelapses. More vulnerable ecosystems have visibly reflected climate change for far longer than 10 years now.

Yeah it's true, Europe has had heat waves in the past. For instance, in 1540. Also 1779. And also 1906, 1947, 1964, 1976, 2003, 2006, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Frequency? Do I look like a statistician to you?!

Let's just say that, if we're talking likelihood, climate change is the "we've already smashed the button and are now debating whether we should get in the vault" category.

Edible soap?! The solution is clearly edible dishes!

The writers of the article are just mad that instead of state taking money away from someone, they just funded an event with voluntary donations.

In decent countries, a "voluntary donation" to state officials is called a bribe.

The Streisand Effect is taking effect in here in terms of surpressing a question has lead to many more people finding out about it

The reason why people like this don't care about the Streisand effect is that they are not afraid about a one-time scandal. The value they get out of harassing their victim and potentially having them stop reporting is worth a bad buzz that people will eventually forget.

It could be argued that this lead to at least 600 years of pain until the Normans aristocracy (now English) gave up trying to take France.

You're rewriting history here. "The normans" were completely integrated in the French aristocracy, and that's why the kings of England took part in the successoral struggle. The 100 year war was started by the grandson of Philippe IV, of the french Capet dynasty, fighting against a nephew of Philippe IV for legitimate motives. Other cousins fighting it out included the dukes of burgundy, the house of Anjou-Sicily, etc.

If anything, a few normans lords marrying into the Capet family was just a little gene refill to stave off inbreeding.

This exactly. The software industry has enjoyed lack of antitrust for decades now, and only complains now that others are able to ask any price against them.

Did Alibaba procure tons of stuff from Anthropic without paying, and use it to train a model?

I don't see the issue. Didn't Anthropic train on our data, which it acquired illegally?

It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward.

If you're looking for the seeds of imperialism, you'll find them all the way back to US independence.

The point the article is making is that 2001 was a tipping point in that evolution.

So now I have to get permission from the government to browse the web? And they can revoke that permission at any time?

You're moving the goalpost on me, here. I'm merely arguing that if age verification was the goal, there is no need to disclose identity.

This idea is worse than facial scanning, by a lot.

Let's agree to disagree.

Not necessarily. Some sites have no interest in communicating your data to the government, unlike their 23019 affiliate ad programs.

If your government is paying private third parties to collect data on you (hello USA), the issue is much wider, and nothing would protect you from such a government. Even without age verification, if the government is interested in spying on you, and the sites are willing to sell, they would gladly trade your IP and connection log.

you generate a random number and send it to website you want to visit.

Website you want to visit generates a one-time private/public key for the purpose of this login attempt, hashes your random number, and sends the hash back to you.

You connect to the government auth platform, auth yourself to your government, and ask them to sign the hash you received.

You pass the signed hash as well as the original random number to the website you wanted to access (the original random number is used by the website to store the one-time key they generated for you). They can see it is signed by the government. They can see it is made with the hash they provided.

You get access to whatever content you wanted. The website doesn't know who you are. The government doesn't know where you logged in. Sure, it won't hold up against collusion between website and government, but nothing would.

the principles explained above are slight adaptations of PKCE authentication.

The issue is not the models, the issue is that this method ws tried before, and humans suck at writing what they want. Developing in small increments allowing feedback was an answer to this issue.

If you made models able to code to long spec, you would be left with the hard issue of having to write them.

High rises were far from being the only, or even the dominant model for social housing in Europe. Different plans such as low rises, semi-detached houses and single homes also got implemented.

Look at French banlieues, German Plattenbauten or British Councils - they are synonymous with Crime and physical as well as cultural despair.

Sure, because what existed before was absolutely fine [1][2]...

The truth is that these policies worked so well that pepole completely forgot what existed before. The alternative to housing projects wasn't a country without crime or despair, it was more crime, shanty towns, people displaced by war and unable to get back to normal life, and young workers unable to move to places of employment in the postwar economic boom. That topic was so uncontroversial that every european government, leftwing or rightwing, did it.

I agree that a social housing project alone isn't enough to fix every problem, but that doesn't make it the source of other unsolved problems.

[1]: Nanterre's shanty towns, https://www.defense-92.fr/exposition/la-vie-des-bidonvilles-...

[2]: pre-war shanty town, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2019/jul/04/how-p...

Basically, all of Europe post-WW2. A significant share of new build in the 50s-60s was social housing.

What I was getting at, is that people argue about jobs rather than about money, is that society values work, not paying "bums". They may be more or less self-conscious about it. If you offer to pay them for not working, they are likely going to be suspicious, and for good reason: for all of their lives, and for all of society's life, paying people for existing has been, essentially, frowned upon.

And that's the issue with UBI: no one in their right minds can believe that UBI won't be (or quickly become) the bare minimum needed for people not to riot. And those of us that are pessimistic or have read history books know that, at some point, there is also the risk that people on UBI may get deported/castrated/sent to work camps/killed (or, in modern parlance, transformed into biodiesel). That's not necessarily the agenda of people arguing for UBI, but that's an inevitable risk that comes with it.

If you live in a (functioning) democracy the notion is politically improbable.

Anyone with even a hint of interest in labour movements in western countries probably knows that there is no such thing as a democracy working well enough to protect workers when push comes to shove.

I have sympathy for people worried about losing their livelihoods. But at the same time I struggle to sympathise with the idea that jobs themselves are something sacred we should be fighting for.

I can agree with the author's point, but they seem oblivious to the fact that people lamenting the loss of their job is usually the politically correct way for them to lament the loss of their paycheck.